1) I replied because of some unknown person on the internet calling a single mom wanting to better life for herself and child "repulsive."

2) I did not reply to the "animal shelter argument" because the only point of my 2nd post was to refute the silly stereotyping the poster seemed to make about me because I go to Berkeley Law. Unless someone wants to claim that the stereotype people think of when thinking of Berkeley is old non-trad stay-at-home mom. Somehow I doubt that's the case. In addition, I was stating some qualifications and life experience I might have that may actually be relevant to this issue. The poster calling the OP "repulsive" does not seem to have any qualifications for making any statements about what single moms should or shouldn't do.

3) related - attacking me because I go to Berkeley law, making some remark as if my opinion is invalid is a logical fallacy.

4) Equating a woman who already has a child going to law school with a law student who wants to adopt a pet has so many problems with it, it seems ridiculous to give it any sort of weight. But since some seem to think it does, let's go for it. Is the argument, stated generally, so it could perhaps apply to a different fact set "People who are responsible for defenseless creatures should not attend law school?" or is the argument "Law students shouldn't adopt pets and therefore women that already have children should not attend law school?" The fact set between these two situations are completely different. - pets, children - treated differently under the law- person adopting a pet, by definition does not already have the pet. In the current situation, the woman already has a child. Perhaps an argument could be made that a single law student should not adopt a child. I could see drawing that analogy from the animal shelter argument. However, an animal shelter would not come into your home, after you'd already adopted it, and confiscate your pet because you went to law school, nor would anyone (reasonable) suggest that someone trying to better their life should not do so if they already have a pet.

And now this thread has truly reached ridiculous proportions. OP, make a list of well-researched pros and cons about going to law school as a single parent of a young child. Make a reasoned decision based on the factors in your life. And please, ignore idiots on the internet.

1) I replied because of some unknown person on the internet calling a single mom wanting to better life for herself and child "repulsive."

2) I did not reply to the "animal shelter argument" because the only point of my 2nd post was to refute the silly stereotyping the poster seemed to make about me because I go to Berkeley Law. Unless someone wants to claim that the stereotype people think of when thinking of Berkeley is old non-trad stay-at-home mom. Somehow I doubt that's the case. In addition, I was stating some qualifications and life experience I might have that may actually be relevant to this issue. The poster calling the OP "repulsive" does not seem to have any qualifications for making any statements about what single moms should or shouldn't do.

3) related - attacking me because I go to Berkeley law, making some remark as if my opinion is invalid is a logical fallacy.

4) Equating a woman who already has a child going to law school with a law student who wants to adopt a pet has so many problems with it, it seems ridiculous to give it any sort of weight. But since some seem to think it does, let's go for it. Is the argument, stated generally, so it could perhaps apply to a different fact set "People who are responsible for defenseless creatures should not attend law school?" or is the argument "Law students shouldn't adopt pets and therefore women that already have children should not attend law school?" The fact set between these two situations are completely different. - pets, children - treated differently under the law- person adopting a pet, by definition does not already have the pet. In the current situation, the woman already has a child. Perhaps an argument could be made that a single law student should not adopt a child. I could see drawing that analogy from the animal shelter argument. However, an animal shelter would not come into your home, after you'd already adopted it, and confiscate your pet because you went to law school, nor would anyone (reasonable) suggest that someone trying to better their life should not do so if they already have a pet.

And now this thread has truly reached ridiculous proportions. OP, make a list of well-researched pros and cons about going to law school as a single parent of a young child. Make a reasoned decision based on the factors in your life. And please, ignore idiots on the internet.

Looks like you've been on LSD for a while..are you surprised by any of this?

Additionally, I would like to point out, the the "repulsive" poster didn't actually make an argument in his first post, he stated an opinion. In the second, he pointed out that animal shelters don't let people who are gone 12 hours/day adopt a pet (iirc, I didn't actually go back and read it). He didn't actually MAKE an argument. He just kinda left it open that we should somehow draw some conclusions. He didn't actually draw references between the two fact set to argue that already existing children = yet to be adopted pets or that children = pets or that law school = 12 hour days. But hey. Earlcat seems to want to give him the benefit of the doubt that "repulsive"'s statements actually constituted an argument. I don't think I'll try "repulsives" method on my next law exam though. The profs always take great care to tell us to use the facts, use the facts to draw analogies, don't just state conclusions.

ETA: the whole time I was distracting myself with this thread, I couldn't help but think of this comic: http://xkcd.com/386/

In the second, he pointed out that animal shelters don't let people who are gone 12 hours/day adopt a pet (iirc, I didn't actually go back and read it). He didn't actually MAKE an argument. He just kinda left it open that we should somehow draw some conclusions.

The conclusion he was pointing toward, though unstated, was pretty clear, so yes, it was an argument. (And I don't think the intended conclusion was anything nearly as outrageous as "child=pet" like you're trying to paint, but even that would make it an argument.) Not that I have a pony in this race, but I don't think anybody has addressed his point, which is that some would find it repulsive to be away from a puppy for so many hours, so why not be repulsed by being away from your child for that amount of time.

I'll take a stab and answer that the puppy is left home alone with some newspaper and a chew-toy, whereas the child is left with another adult caretaker--grandparent, nanny, or whomever--and a chew toy. I don't think the concern that the child won't be cared for or loved carries much weight. The business about it affecting the likelihood of the kid taking drugs is a bit over the top. The flip side is that it's also over the top to think that kids' lives won't be good enough if their parent doesn't earn a lawyer's income.

Another question that might be brought up, however, is the value the parent places on his/her time with the child. Law school is a very busy time, and the practice of law in most cases is even busier. Are you willing to miss out on so much time as your child grows up so you can go after the income, prestige, satisfaction, or whatever it is you're hoping to get from law school and the practice of law? There isn't a wrong answer here, but I think it's prudent to recognize that there are trade-offs.

Congrats to you Matthies, you are a super law student who knows which items to skim through. My classes generally assign readings that require 3 hours of study time for every hour of lecture... so 15 credits correlates to around 60 hours... and then law review/journals/clinics usually take up more time than that. But that is awesome that you are so good, I am sure you are a superior man than I.

Thanks, and I am. I did everything you did, minus 1 class per semester plus an MLS/LLM and worked either FT or PT all through law school. I also had two pets who seem to be just fine with the amount of time it took me to do all this.

The simple fact of the matter is there are people who go to school every year with children, pets, jobs and other responsibilities. Many of them are successful. There are many who go to law school without these responsibilities and are unsuccessful.Does one necessarily correlate to another because of law school alone? That would be pretty stupid argument to make.

Its up to the individual, maybe some people canít handle the stress of LS and anything else, but some folks can (and some folks will fail). But it has a lot more to do with the individual than anything LS related, people with children and pets have managed to do law school for decades and will manage to do it for decades more. Some folks can only handle one thing at time. Know your limits, if your that type of person then you canít and should not do it. If you are not that kind of person you would know it by now.

Logged

*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

I actually know a few people who are parents that attend law school both PT & FT. I'd imagine the sacrifice you'd make in going FT-- and it'd be time consuming so much that you probably can't be the "full time" parent you may desire. Consider PT.

In my last grad program (MSW), we only had one mom of young kids. Our schedule was pretty hardcore (8 hrs of classes, m/t with 12 hr/day practicums w/t/f plus serious reading and assignments of 3-4 papers per week, 16 hrs a term).

She only was able to keep up because she had her mother move in full time to watch the kids. She struggled but she made it through it all in the end!

My sis is in grad school now and works full time and I help her a lot. I don't think she could do it without us there to help out.